Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: Do U.S. Ebola Patients Have a Constitutional Right to Try Experimental Drugs?

  1. #1

    Do U.S. Ebola Patients Have a Constitutional Right to Try Experimental Drugs?

    Do U.S. Ebola Patients Have a Constitutional Right to Try Experimental Drugs?
    By Damon Root - Oct. 9, 2014

    Assume the following dire scenario: You become infected with Ebola and are quarantined by U.S. medical officials. A promising new experimental drug is in the works, but it hasn't yet received final approval. You want to try the drug but the authorities won't let you. Do you have a constitutional right to try to preserve your life by taking the experimental drug? Most Americans would probably say yes. But according to a prominent federal court, the answer is no.

    In 2007 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled against a group of terminally ill cancer patients who were suing the FDA in order to gain access to experimental drugs that had the potential to save their lives.
    ...
    More:
    http://reason.com/blog/2014/10/09/eb...atients-have-a
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    It is outrageous that terminal patients can not try experimental drugs or drugs that are not "approved" by the FDA. It seems as though this court case has the argument backwards though. Shouldn't the case really ask "does the FDA have the constitutional right stop anyone from using an experimental drug?" The answer to that constitutional question should be a resounding "no".

    Per the 10th Amendment:

    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  4. #3
    Of course you don't.

    You have a natural right to do so.

    But the CON-stitution says (or at least the Clowns in Gowns that tell us from their mighty perch what that document says) that the FedGov basically owns you, you are chattel property, with which the state can dispose of at it's whim.

    Now, get back in line and move the $#@! along.

  5. #4
    Per the Commerce Clause, you must submit official documentation that proves that the drug was researched, developed, and fully produced in one single state.

    No natural chemicals may be used in the production of these drugs if said natural chemicals have ever crossed state borders in the past fifty years, unless proper regulations are followed.

    /constitution worship

  6. #5
    No, because the 13th Amendment bans (non-governmental) slavery.

  7. #6
    natural right...big difference.

  8. #7
    Who gives a damn what a court thinks? The simple fact that a judge would make such a criminally ignorant decision is prima facie proof that they and the so-called "government" they represent have less than zero validity. We are in no measure obliged or otherwise bound to obey any command these people might issue. Unfortunately, these people have guns, the will to use them under the false imprimatur of "the state", and the silent consent of the vast majority.

    IOW, we are screwed on that front until such time that we come to our senses and take back by force that which is the birthright of every man on earth because Theye will not be forthcoming in response to polite requests.

    As things stand, we are way beyond caring what courts think or being reasonably able to turn to them for justice.
    Last edited by osan; 10-10-2014 at 10:23 AM.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  9. #8
    This should be any easy win issue for Rand and a dem. Nice easy reform.
    In New Zealand:
    The Coastguard is a Charity
    Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
    The DMV is a private non-profit
    Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
    The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
    5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
    A tax return has 4 fields
    Business licenses aren't a thing
    Prostitution is legal
    We have a constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by idiom View Post
    This should be any easy win issue for Rand and a dem. Nice easy reform.
    A nice easy reform that will enhance real personal freedom in a life or death circumstance.

    Which means it will probably go nowhere.

  12. #10
    Convoluted question.

    NO you do not have a Constitutional right to have access to a new drug. Neither, for that matter, do you have a natural right to a new drug. If the company who invented it does not want to provide it, then that's all there is to it. It's theirs.

    However, the FDA has no authority to prohibit access to a new drug either. If the manufacturer is OK with you taking it, and you want to take it, the FDA has zero Constitutional authority to step in and say "no."

    The decision was wrong, because it upheld an FDA prohibition which itself is fundamentally unconstitutional. The complainant was wrong, because there is no such thing as a 'constitutional right to experimental drugs' anymore than there is a constitutional right to 'healthcare.' This experimental drug is the property of someone else. You neither have a Constitutional nor a natural right to access it. You cannot call up the Sheriff and ask him to roll down to the pharmaceutical company and take the drug from them at gunpoint.

    You DO, however have a right to not be blocked byt he government from consensual access to said drug.

  13. #11
    I hope all of my buds get some colloidal silver or learn how to make it for yourself it is easy to make get a kit that has high ratings even the most top of the line expensive kit is under a $100 and well worth it. CS kills viruses and I think if you take it you stand just as good a chance of living thru Ebola as you do with an experimental drug maybe you won't even get it at all if you start taking it now.

    I don't trust big pharma to come up it something that would make me well from ebola or any other disease. The only thing the medical industrial complex is good at is trauma cases they absolutely suck at treating disease IMO. Rich white man make bad medicine hate life.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    Convoluted question.
    Yeah, you'd kind of expect Reason to have a little more detail to this story.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  15. #13
    Not while there's a war on drugs.

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...


  16. #14
    Good clarification, and true, but I read it a little different:

    to Try Experimental Drugs?
    That, to me, assumed that the question of ownership and acquisition had already been settled.

    Maybe Big Pharma made it and you bought it, or maybe you grew it in a pot in your backyard, either way, only an unjust and illegitimate government would prohibit you from taking it.

    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    Convoluted question.

    NO you do not have a Constitutional right to have access to a new drug. Neither, for that matter, do you have a natural right to a new drug. If the company who invented it does not want to provide it, then that's all there is to it. It's theirs.

    However, the FDA has no authority to prohibit access to a new drug either. If the manufacturer is OK with you taking it, and you want to take it, the FDA has zero Constitutional authority to step in and say "no."

    The decision was wrong, because it upheld an FDA prohibition which itself is fundamentally unconstitutional. The complainant was wrong, because there is no such thing as a 'constitutional right to experimental drugs' anymore than there is a constitutional right to 'healthcare.' This experimental drug is the property of someone else. You neither have a Constitutional nor a natural right to access it. You cannot call up the Sheriff and ask him to roll down to the pharmaceutical company and take the drug from them at gunpoint.

    You DO, however have a right to not be blocked byt he government from consensual access to said drug.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Good clarification, and true, but I read it a little different:



    That, to me, assumed that the question of ownership and acquisition had already been settled.

    Maybe Big Pharma made it and you bought it, or maybe you grew it in a pot in your backyard, either way, only an unjust and illegitimate government would prohibit you from taking it.
    Good point, you were talking about trying it once access had been arranged, and I was talking about the access itself. What you said is true from the assumptions you had made, and what I said is true from the assumptions I had made. Brian4Liberty is right that the article itself left a lot to be assumed.
    http://glenbradley.net/share/aleksan...nitsyn_4-t.gif “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Of course you don't.

    You have a natural right to do so.

    But the CON-stitution says (or at least the Clowns in Gowns that tell us from their mighty perch what that document says) that the FedGov basically owns you, you are chattel property, with which the state can dispose of at it's whim.

    Now, get back in line and move the $#@! along.
    You have a natural right to try any drug you can afford.
    Out of every one hundred men they send us, ten should not even be here. Eighty will do nothing but serve as targets for the enemy. Nine are real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, upon them depends our success in battle. But one, ah the one, he is a real warrior, and he will bring the others back from battle alive.

    Duty is the most sublime word in the English language. Do your duty in all things. You can not do more than your duty. You should never wish to do less than your duty.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    Convoluted question.

    NO you do not have a Constitutional right to have access to a new drug. Neither, for that matter, do you have a natural right to a new drug. If the company who invented it does not want to provide it, then that's all there is to it. It's theirs.

    However, the FDA has no authority to prohibit access to a new drug either. If the manufacturer is OK with you taking it, and you want to take it, the FDA has zero Constitutional authority to step in and say "no."

    The decision was wrong, because it upheld an FDA prohibition which itself is fundamentally unconstitutional. The complainant was wrong, because there is no such thing as a 'constitutional right to experimental drugs' anymore than there is a constitutional right to 'healthcare.' This experimental drug is the property of someone else. You neither have a Constitutional nor a natural right to access it. You cannot call up the Sheriff and ask him to roll down to the pharmaceutical company and take the drug from them at gunpoint.

    You DO, however have a right to not be blocked byt he government from consensual access to said drug.
    You're reasoning is sound but it would seem you are wrong. Apparently you do not have that right, because one of the superior beings said you don't.
    "The Patriarch"

  21. #18
    I think a better question to ask is does the US Govt have the Authority to tell people what they can and can not do with their own lives? Too many Americans have already forgotten we are NOT their property, and "Permission" to take a drug is not in thier power to either grant or deny.
    1776 > 1984

    The FAILURE of the United States Government to operate and maintain an
    Honest Money System , which frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, is the single largest contributing factor to the World's current Economic Crisis.

    The Elimination of Privacy is the Architecture of Genocide

    Belief, Money, and Violence are the three ways all people are controlled

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Our central bank is not privately owned.

  22. #19
    This is a case where government and Big pHARMa work hand-in-hand to create the monopoly over our lives. Get rid of both and you wouldn't have these problems.
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner

  23. #20
    I agree with the sentiment that you have a natural right to try a drug that may save your life. Just sign the requisite waivers, etc., and go for it.

    Seems like the FDA has provisions for this, though, the Dallas Ebola victim apparently got special approval for an experimental drug: http://www.npr.org/2014/10/06/354124...erimental-drug

  24. #21
    I will not beg this system to help me get well $#@! them!

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Working Poor View Post
    I will not beg this system to help me get well $#@! them!
    Yeah, my sentiments exactly.
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Pericles View Post
    You have a natural right to try any drug you can afford.
    Or make or grow yourself.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by buck000 View Post
    Seems like the FDA has provisions for this, though, the Dallas Ebola victim apparently got special approval for an experimental drug: http://www.npr.org/2014/10/06/354124...erimental-drug
    It seems they will make exceptions when it comes to a contagious and rapidly fatal disease. Imagine that. Cancer? Your problem, you have to wait.

    And the drug that they gave the Dallas patient was not designed or intended to work against Ebola. Seems that it didn't work.

    ZMapp (a three anti-body cocktail) is designed specifically for Ebola, but unfortunately, they don't have a manufacturing process that they can scale-up for real production. They can only make extremely small quantities. They inject tobacco leaves individually in order to manipulate the leaf to grow the anti-bodies. Not something that works well for large production.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Well, one thing is sure... you have the right to ask for permission to use experimental drugs.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post

    NO you do not have a Constitutional right to have access to a new drug. Neither, for that matter, do you have a natural right to a new drug. If the company who invented it does not want to provide it, then that's all there is to it. It's theirs.

    However, the FDA has no authority to prohibit access to a new drug either. If the manufacturer is OK with you taking it, and you want to take it, the FDA has zero Constitutional authority to step in and say "no."
    So I read article (blog), and I think a very important detail is missing (i.e. was the drug developed using tax money). I agree with your conclusion, but hold that if the company which developed the drug used taxpayer money in any way, shape, or form (research grant, tax breaks, tax benefit to another arm of the company, free printed money from the federal reserve, etc), then that company is effectively operating as a branch of the US government, and is therefore owned (at least in part) by the people of the United States, which, IMO, gives them a right to the product of that labor, as it results directly from the investment (willing or otherwise) of US citizens.

    - Mr. Tansill
    Reflect the Light!

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    So I read article (blog), and I think a very important detail is missing (i.e. was the drug developed using tax money). I agree with your conclusion, but hold that if the company which developed the drug used taxpayer money in any way, shape, or form (research grant, tax breaks, tax benefit to another arm of the company, free printed money from the federal reserve, etc), then that company is effectively operating as a branch of the US government, and is therefore owned (at least in part) by the people of the United States, which, IMO, gives them a right to the product of that labor, as it results directly from the investment (willing or otherwise) of US citizens.

    - Mr. Tansill
    You don't own the US government, it owns you.



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-17-2015, 01:11 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-24-2015, 07:45 PM
  3. Three of four more ebola patients arrive in USA today?
    By osan in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-22-2014, 03:25 PM
  4. LA schools: Ebola patients will need to keep up with homework
    By cajuncocoa in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-16-2014, 01:02 PM
  5. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-07-2014, 08:26 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •